The question for the Romney bullying segment was “does the story matter?” I took that to mean “does this incident tell us anything about Romney would be as President.” I answered no. I maintained that position throughout the segment. Tamron thought I was ambushing her, apparently, and so she cut off my mic, I learned later.

It would be easy to take one side or the other in this spat as being right. But I’m not going to do that because it’s not that cut and dried as there are several things at play here.

Most of the blame here lies with Carney. Whether or not he thought he was answering the question regarding the subject he thought he was going to be discussing takes a big back seat to the subject of how he decided to answer the question. He decided to make this confrontational. That’s all on him. This wasn’t like the time MSNBC booked a known bomb thrower and provocateur like John Ziegler on Contessa Brewer’s hour. What ensued with Ziegler was easily predictable…what ensued with Carney was not.

But while I lay most of the blame for this with Carney, because it was his answer that started all this, it takes two to tango and Hall doesn’t get off the hook entirely. While her response to Carney was nowhere near as outrageous or over the line as Thomas Roberts calling out an empty chair, Hall could have and should have handled this better.

I know, I know…Phil Griffin likes his POV even if it’s supposed to be from his un-POV news anchors, but there are ways to react to Carney that are effective and ways to react to Carney that are not so effective. Thrusting yourself into the story is not one of the better ways to react to Carney. I don’t care if you take personal offense to it or not, the moment you “go there” you’ve lost the interview and the segment is unrecoverable and ruined and the storyline is no longer about Carney’s alleged attempt at misdirection but about your response to Carney. In other words a segment that wasn’t about you just became about you. That’s something one should try to avoid because it’s a loser scenario. Just ask Contessa Brewer how the Ziegler segment worked out for her in the court of public opinion. It’s scenes like this that are the reason why Cable News is the butt end of so many jokes.

Unless Hall herself did Carney’s booking, I find it questionable that she knew the exact terms that were used to book Carney and the words chosen to express them. Hall said this to Carney on the air according to Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher…

“You don’t want me to go anything on you,” Hall interjected. “You’re actually irritating me right now. I’m going to be honest with you. Yes, you are. You knew the topics we were going to discuss. You knew them. You agreed.”

But did Hall know exactly word for word how Carney was pitched? I’m going to give Carney some wiggle room here and suggest he release the emails of the pitch from MSNBC to prove the following assertion he made to Politico…

The question for the Romney bullying segment was “does the story matter?” I took that to mean “does this incident tell us anything about Romney would be as President.” I answered no.

Proving that Carney was indeed pitched that way would at least let him off the hook in my eyes for his line of response but not for how he chose his words.

That’s still all on him. Ultimately it’s still mostly Carney’s fault. Hall doesn’t get all aggro if Carney doesn’t throw the first punch. Yes, I wish she had not lost it like that and instead responded in a more restrained manner but she never would have responded at all if Carney hadn’t lit a fire under her.

56 Responses to “The Hazards of Live TV: #25,161”

As the saying goes, how you say something is often as important as what you say. Carney here was deliberately being confrontational and antagonistic even if he had the better argument, or at least a tenable one.

He could have raised the same points – legitimate ones – without having a chip on his shoulder while making them.

Hall could have handled it better too using a deft touch, some humor, a little self-mocking. Something light. But that’s certainly not the style that MSNBC wants. They want heat more than they want light.

Boo hoo. Tamron Hall is a real crybaby, isn’t she? FNC people have guests on all the time who want to change the topic to something else, and I’ve NEVER seen any of them act as childish as this woman did to her guest.

The guy addressed the topic and wanted to move on, but NO; MSNBC needs to belabor this issue because they sure can’t talk about 0bama’s economy.

Has anyone seen 0bama’s college transcripts? Nuh uh. So why are we going back to Romney’s prep school days for an ELEVEN PAGE discussion of his antics, many of which seem to be unsubstantiated?

So get used to this. Distraction upon distraction will be hurled at the electorate until November. The economy continues to tank; jobs are disappearing, our status in the world continues to be diminished, and we’re worried about Romney’s dog and his high school pranks?

I think Hall like a lot of LIbs is just mad this latest hit piece on Romney isn’t working like they hope…(first the Wash Post is caught doing it’s own edited version of what one of the “witness” said and the family of the alleged “victim” is upset at the Post for dragging their deceased relative in this smear and taking issue with some of the so called “facts”)…..so she took it out on this guy.

Just watched the clip and Tamron came off looking like an angry fool. I guess you’re only allowed to talk if you’re willing to further a ridiculous story rather than calling out the absurdity of the faux controversy. Lean forward…or else we’ll pout and cut your mic.

The story has been corroborated by 5 witnesses, and Mitt clearly seems to believe it happened, judging from his responses. For one thing, he knew this story was coming, and made no effort to head it off.

Yes, I believe real journalism, not the BS yellowsheet stuff you work off of.

@fritz
It’s cute that you think that, but it’s inaccurate… and you’d have a hard time (impossible) trying to prove it. But don’t let the truth get in the way of your assuptions about me.

@joe
Except that’s not true, it’s only what you’ve been fed… so that you’ll feel less guilty about believing such a meaningless story. Have you read any of the contradicting stories? Or only the (alleged) responses to the contradictions… which more often than not, just give you something else shiney to play with.

He picks on people who bake him cookies; he straps a dog to the roof of a car; he tells enemployed poor people he’s unemployed, too, with a bizarre chuckle; he thinks poor people are “taken care of”; he drops phrases like “pink slip” and “firing” without batting an eye. I have all I need. That guy is a jerk. A creepy one.

Forget it folks. Like we have learned over and over again, Joe has no ability to consider anything other than what he already believes to be true or “feels.” It doesn’t matter that the evidence doesn’t add up, he’s made up his mind based on his own fantasy.

The guy is the definition of a narcissist, but lives so far in that world that he can’t see that. He’ll complain about Romney (because he’s a Republican, and Joe’s been hearded into believing he hates Republicans in power), for things that he’d either dismiss about others, or is himself. It’s a joke to try to reason with him.

So JOE if what you say about Romney is true how do you explain him saving a family and their dog after a boating accident?

And the cookie story really? it was just a joke no one but you Libs take that seriously,the Dog storyt?he dog was not harmed and it lived a long life and died of old age,the other stories are half truths are flat out Liberal Lies and the current story the so called witness are all Dems one who said he’s hated Romney for years the other one wasn’t even there and had to be reminded by the Post of the incident plus the family isn’t backing the story and are upset how you Libs are dragging their dead relative into this Romney Bash.

Per usual, Joe is way over the top. The cookie thing? Are you farking serious? Sounds like the guy’s family thinks the story is a political hatchet job but none of that matters to the extreme irrational left.

Back to the Hall story for a bit. I heard it live and tend to agree with Spud and Erich’s POV. Hall has gone off on pundits before, although maybe not to this extent, and she can have a short fuse at times. It’s not unheard of at MSNBC for hosts (Dylan Ratigan, Chris Matthews, KO, etc.) to chew out a guest. I see a short no-fault apology by Hall as the probable outcome

It’s one of those events where those on the left will blame Carney and those on the right, like Missy, LS, Blue, and Mlong will blame only Hall. Those, like Spud, Erich and me (on this occasion), who look at it as just a cable news story will find some middle ground to till.

Spud threading the needle like a drunken seamstress on the setup to this “Hazard”: all over the place. God does he bend over backwards to give MSNBC some degree of credibility.

Cutting off a guest’s mike should be the nuclear option of an interviewer, reserved for racist, profane, or threatening behavior of out of control guests. This was Hall showing a lack of professional skills to do her job, an emotional response driven by her network’s responsibility to never let a Republican gain the upper hand.

Fair point, Fritz but getting that angry and basically cutting the guy’s mic in that situation is ridiculous. She’s not a down the middle journalist and she works for a network that uses the same slogan as the obama campaign and cuts liberal advocacy ads. She should expect some pushback from time to time. I don’t think you’d see someone like megyn Kelley act that way.

^^ It’s exactly the same and you are just confirming what I said. You all on the right will trash Hall and her supporters and praise Kelly and her followers while those on the left will do the opposite. Thanks.

Perhaps that should be part of your theory as well: “(1) People on the left will praise Hall, while condemning right wing folks who do the same. (2) Visa versa. (3) People who make that assumption, will imagine others to confirm that view, even when they don’t.”